Trigger Question #90:
Let me state right now that I think I got this idea from something Peter Drucker wrote. I’m not sure. But I suspect, not remembering his original intent, that I have corrupted his meaning into my nonsense. For that I apologize, even though I rather like my nonsense.
I think Peter Drucker wrote something like this: Knowledge workers, if they are effective, start with the time they have available. They don’t start with tasks.
Here’s how I understand what he said. You, of course, may form your own understanding.
Yes, we can start with tasks. We can then, optimistically, work through our to-do lists. We can then aim to make as many ticks as there are tasks. The more ticks, the more productive we think we are.
Or we can start with how much time we have available. We can then realistically decide what can be done, or what must be done, with that time available to us. We thus aim to make an impact, to create outcomes that matter, in that time. The bigger the impact, the more effective we are.
Why does it matter which approach you follow? Well, you can have an almost infinite number of tasks. But you always have a finite amount of time. Your constraint is time, not tasks. (As if you did not already know that.)
Here’s the catch. Time, as a constraint, forces you to ponder which actions will create outcomes that matter in the time you have available. Meaningful impact is your driving force. Whereas a list of tasks, as a constraint, nags you to reduce their number in the time available. Speed, not quality of impact, is your driving force.
So, make this your daily mantra. Working my tasks makes me feel productive. Working my time makes me be effective.
But of course, being human, we have a problem. We get a kick out of ticking off tasks because we pooh-pooh ticking clocks.
Until it’s too late.
Welcome to my side of the nonsense divide.
. . .